[ChrisCoaster]

.. . Whilst searching for reviews on other makes and models. Visited
their website(boss is div of Roland), and was impressesd as much with
their straightfwd description of their rh-200 and rh-300 headphones
and was wondering If they pose a challenge to such industry stalwarts
as Sony, Sennheiser and Beyer. Anyone here ever strap them on?

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 2, 10:01*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
. . Whilst searching for reviews on other makes and models. Visited
their website(boss is div of Roland), and was impressesd as much with
their straightfwd description of their rh-200 and rh-300 headphones
and was wondering If they pose a challenge to such industry stalwarts
as Sony, Sennheiser and Beyer. Anyone here ever strap them on?
----—
I never ever saw so few reviews for a headphone mfgd by a respected
provider of products for both the live sound and recording
industries! There are probably two explanations for this: Either 1 -
the headphones are crap, or 2 - they are targeted at a very specific
client segment. In any case, who can dispute products mfgd for
engineers & musicians??

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 3, 6:51*am, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 2, 10:01*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: . . Whilst searching for reviews on other makes and models. Visited
their website(boss is div of Roland), and was impressesd as much with
their straightfwd description of their rh-200 and rh-300 headphones
and was wondering If they pose a challenge to such industry stalwarts
as Sony, Sennheiser and Beyer. Anyone here ever strap them on?

----—
I never ever saw so few reviews for a headphone mfgd by a respected
provider of products for both the live sound and recording
industries! *There are probably two explanations for this: Either 1 -
the headphones are crap, or 2 - they are targeted at a very specific
client segment. In any case, who can dispute products mfgd for
engineers & musicians??
___________________

Oh, in case you were wondering, NO, I do not work for Roland, so this
is not a sales pitch.

-CC

[geoff]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 3, 6:51 am, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 2, 10:01 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: . .
Whilst searching for reviews on other makes and models. Visited
their website(boss is div of Roland), and was impressesd as much
with their straightfwd description of their rh-200 and rh-300
headphones and was wondering If they pose a challenge to such
industry stalwarts as Sony, Sennheiser and Beyer. Anyone here ever
strap them on?

----—
I never ever saw so few reviews for a headphone mfgd by a respected
provider of products for both the live sound and recording
industries! There are probably two explanations for this: Either 1 -
the headphones are crap, or 2 - they are targeted at a very specific
client segment. In any case, who can dispute products mfgd for
engineers & musicians??
___________________

Oh, in case you were wondering, NO, I do not work for Roland, so this
is not a sales pitch.


I wonder whicvh major headphone manufacturer actually made them ? Many are
actually made for other companies by AT....

geoff

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 3, 3:35*pm, "geoff" wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 3, 6:51 am, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 2, 10:01 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: . .
Whilst searching for reviews on other makes and models. Visited
their website(boss is div of Roland), and was impressesd as much
with their straightfwd description of their rh-200 and rh-300
headphones and was wondering If they pose a challenge to such
industry stalwarts as Sony, Sennheiser and Beyer. Anyone here ever
strap them on?

----
I never ever saw so few reviews for a headphone mfgd by a respected
provider of products for both the live sound and recording
industries! There are probably two explanations for this: Either 1 -
the headphones are crap, or 2 - they are targeted at a very specific
client segment. In any case, who can dispute products mfgd for
engineers & musicians??
___________________

Oh, in case you were wondering, NO, I do not work for Roland, so this
is not a sales pitch.

I wonder whicvh major headphone manufacturer actually made them ? *Many are
actually made for other companies by AT....

geoff
________
That does not explain their flat frequency response. Go on google
image and keyword rh-300 and frequency response and you'll see what I
mean! only a tiny trough around 7k but otherwise ruler flat.

-CCoaster

[Andrew Haley]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:35?pm, "geoff" wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 3, 6:51 am, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 2, 10:01 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: . .
Whilst searching for reviews on other makes and models. Visited
their website(boss is div of Roland), and was impressesd as much
with their straightfwd description of their rh-200 and rh-300
headphones and was wondering If they pose a challenge to such
industry stalwarts as Sony, Sennheiser and Beyer. Anyone here ever
strap them on?

----
I never ever saw so few reviews for a headphone mfgd by a respected
provider of products for both the live sound and recording
industries! There are probably two explanations for this: Either 1 -
the headphones are crap, or 2 - they are targeted at a very specific
client segment. In any case, who can dispute products mfgd for
engineers & musicians??
___________________

Oh, in case you were wondering, NO, I do not work for Roland, so this
is not a sales pitch.

I wonder whicvh major headphone manufacturer actually made them ? ?Many are
actually made for other companies by AT....

geoff
________
That does not explain their flat frequency response. Go on google
image and keyword rh-300 and frequency response and you'll see what I
mean! only a tiny trough around 7k but otherwise ruler flat.

That doesn't necessarily help. See
http://www.stereophile.com/features/808head

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...
On Oct 3, 3:35 pm, "geoff" wrote:

ChrisCoaster wrote:

I wonder whicvh major headphone manufacturer actually made them ? Many
are
actually made for other companies by AT....

Probably made by somone in China who was cloning some well-known
manufacturer's product, more or less. The most remarkable spec I see is the
use of relatively large 45 mm drivers in a set of headphones at this price
point. You can easily pay 3 times as much for 45 mm drivers. However, the
FR curve admits that they roll off the bass, so at least that benefit of
large drivers is not being fully delivered. So, the myth of driver response
versus low end extension has been carried over from regular speakers.

At this price point, if you are really interested, just buy a pair and see
how they work. If they are not excruciatingly horrible you can at least use
them to repair equipment. If you really like them then you can use them for
your more critical work.

That does not explain their flat frequency response. Go on google
image and keyword rh-300 and frequency response and you'll see what I
mean! only a tiny trough around 7k but otherwise ruler flat.

The actual frequency response of headphones and the desired frequency
response of headphones varies from listener to listener. Headphone FR is
nothing as simple as our usual desire for flat frequency response in
amplifiers and consoles (with their eq controls set flat).

The microphone coupling device that is typically used for measuring is
probably not that far out of the ballpark, but in fact its leading charm is
that it is standardized. IOW, it makes no special attempt to duplicate
actual use. It does not include a good simulation of pinnae, HRTF, or ear
canal effects. IOW, it does not try to duplicate the acoustics of the
pinnae and the ear canal that every headphone has to work with.

We also know that actual use varies from person to person because the pinnae
and the ear canal varies tremendously from person to person. There are
psychological and perceptual effects on top of the simple mechanics. For
example some people are tremendously put off by the imaging of headphones
and earphones, and other people are fine with it.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 4, 7:43*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message

...
On Oct 3, 3:35 pm, "geoff" wrote:

ChrisCoaster wrote:
I wonder whicvh major headphone manufacturer actually made them ? Many
are
actually made for other companies by AT....

Probably made by somone in China who was cloning some well-known
manufacturer's product, more or less. The most remarkable spec I see is the
use of relatively large 45 mm drivers in a set of headphones at this price
point. You can easily pay 3 times as much for 45 mm drivers. *However, the
FR curve admits that they roll off the bass, so at least that benefit of
large drivers is not being fully delivered. So, the myth of driver response
versus low end extension has been carried over from regular speakers.

At this price point, if you are really interested, just buy a pair and see
how they work. If they are not excruciatingly horrible you can at least use
them to repair equipment. If you really like them then you can use them for
your more critical work.

That does not explain their flat frequency response. Go on google
image and keyword rh-300 and frequency response and you'll see what I
mean! *only a tiny trough around 7k but otherwise ruler flat.

The actual frequency response of headphones and the desired frequency
response of headphones varies from listener to listener. Headphone FR is
nothing as simple as our usual desire for flat frequency response in
amplifiers and consoles (with their eq controls set flat).

The microphone coupling device that is typically used for measuring is
probably not that far out of the ballpark, but in fact its leading charm is
that it is standardized. *IOW, it makes no special attempt to duplicate
actual use. It does not include a good simulation of pinnae, HRTF, or ear
canal effects. *IOW, it does not try to duplicate the acoustics of the
pinnae and the ear canal that every headphone has to work with.

We also know that actual use varies from person to person because the pinnae
and the ear canal varies tremendously from person to person. There are
psychological and perceptual effects on top of the simple mechanics. For
example some people are tremendously put off by the imaging of headphones
and earphones, and other people are fine with it.
________________________________

Hi Fi News is referenced in one of the links on here. When I went to
their site and searched for "headphone" - typed just like that -
there were no results. WTH?? HOW can a mag like THAT not test and
review HEADPHONES?!?!

As far as our individual hearing goes, I do understand the effect of
our individual physiques - at least when it comes to the shapes of our
ears. And I also understand that even on the best testing rig - as was
described in that article, even if the testing mic is the best money
can buy, if it is moved even 1/10th of one mm the results will not be
the same. Still, I trust the results I see on headphone . com and
respect the work that goes into deriving those reults. I also know
that if I want the music I listen to to sound like . . .
http://www.headphone.com/headphones/sony-mdr-xb500.php(!) that's what
I have TONE CONTROLS and EQUALIZERS for!!

I have no problem duplucating quite faithfully a bass-heavy curve a la
Beats by Dr. Dre or the aforementioned Sony XBs, right on my Shure
440s or Sennheisers. But I also think mfgs have a responsibility to
provide a *reasonably* flat platform(speaker or headphone) and to
charge a reasonable price for that product. IOW the CONSUMER should
be allowed to tweak their sound - not have it tweaked by the sales/
marketing department of headphone mfg XYZ. And I've got words for how
a lot of music is posted nowadays also, but that's for another thread
and another day.

-CC

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
That does not explain their flat frequency response. Go on google
image and keyword rh-300 and frequency response and you'll see what I
mean! only a tiny trough around 7k but otherwise ruler flat.

Flat frequency response? Methinks someone may need their eyes
checked.

With the amount of enthusiasm heaped on this headphone in this
thread, my curiosity was piqued so I went and looked at the
frequency response graphs. Replotting that same data on a more
normal vertical scale (not the compressed 80 dB scale shown)
reveals that, in fact, not only is the reponse not "flat",
it's also on the mediocre side of normal for headphones. And
that "tiny trough around 7k?" Well, on the graph you reference,
that tiny trough (which is actually at about 5600 Hz), is some
19 dB below the level at 1 kHz.

Overall, the 20-20kHz response envelope is a very UNimpressive
+-15 dB. Even over a more restrictive range like 100-10kHz,
it's still +-12 dB.

Ho hum.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Dick Pierce wrote:
Replotting that same data on a more
normal vertical scale (not the compressed 80 dB scale shown)
reveals that, in fact, not only is the reponse not "flat",
it's also on the mediocre side of normal for headphones. And
that "tiny trough around 7k?" Well, on the graph you reference,
that tiny trough (which is actually at about 5600 Hz), is some
19 dB below the level at 1 kHz.

Overall, the 20-20kHz response envelope is a very UNimpressive
+-15 dB. Even over a more restrictive range like 100-10kHz,
it's still +-12 dB.

If anyone is interested, as I mentioned, I digitized the
data referenced and replotted them with a more normal
vertical scale factors (those corresponding to IEC263),
not the extremely compressed

You can find the replotted data at:

http://cartchunk.org/audiotopics/RH-300_nfr.pdf

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[UnsteadyKen]

ChrisCoaster wrote...

HOW can a mag like THAT not test and
review HEADPHONES?!?!

They do! Often! Sadly the cheapskate publishers are just interested in
making money by flogging overpriced reprints of the tests at...
http://www.testreports.co.uk/music/hifi/

I wish they would follow the example of Stereophile and make all their
tests available freely.

A large library of technical test results are available from the editors
site... (Registration required to download in pdf format)
http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/index.html


--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 4, 9:15*am, Dick Pierce wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
That does not explain their flat frequency response. Go on google
image and keyword rh-300 and frequency response and you'll see what I
mean! *only a tiny trough around 7k but otherwise ruler flat.

Flat frequency response? Methinks someone may need their eyes
checked.

With the amount of enthusiasm heaped on this headphone in this
thread, my curiosity was piqued so I went and looked at the
frequency response graphs. Replotting that same data on a more
normal vertical scale (not the compressed 80 dB scale shown)
reveals that, *in fact, not only is the reponse not "flat",
it's also on the mediocre side of normal for headphones. And
that "tiny trough around 7k?" Well, on the graph you reference,
that tiny trough (which is actually at about 5600 Hz), is some
19 dB below the level at 1 kHz.

Overall, the 20-20kHz response envelope is a very UNimpressive
+-15 dB. Even over a more restrictive range like 100-10kHz,
it's still +-12 dB.

Ho hum.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ * * * * Dick Pierce * * * * * *|
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
______________________________
Click on: http://www.head-fi.org/t/545877/vict...please-help/30
and scroll down to post #41 of 62 of that thread.

-ChrisCoaster

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 4, 9:47*am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote:
Replotting that same data on a more
normal vertical scale (not the compressed 80 dB scale shown)
reveals that, *in fact, not only is the reponse not "flat",
it's also on the mediocre side of normal for headphones. And
that "tiny trough around 7k?" Well, on the graph you reference,
that tiny trough (which is actually at about 5600 Hz), is some
19 dB below the level at 1 kHz.

Overall, the 20-20kHz response envelope is a very UNimpressive
+-15 dB. Even over a more restrictive range like 100-10kHz,
it's still +-12 dB.

If anyone is interested, as I mentioned, I digitized the
data referenced and replotted them with a more normal
vertical scale factors (those corresponding to IEC263),
not the extremely compressed

You can find the replotted data at:

* *http://cartchunk.org/audiotopics/RH-300_nfr.pdf

--
+--------------------------------+
+ * * * * Dick Pierce * * * * * *|
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
__________________________________________
That curve you re-plotted is for the ATH-M50 RIGHT BELOW IT! See
top post, 2nd graph down he
http://www.head-fi.org/t/533917/rola...sed-headphones

And by itself if you prefer: http://cdn.head-fi.org/3/3c/3c969bd4_img024.gif

As I'm sure you would in a sound rig, please "check your sources"!

Again, here is the ATH-300 by itself: http://cdn.head-fi.org/a/a8/a8dd81ad_rh-300_f.gif
Even when I exaggerated the y axis on this it was still flatter than
what you pdf'd. BTW nice work on PDFing the graph, just the wrong
headphone.

-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 4, 11:37*am, UnsteadyKen wrote:
*ChrisCoaster wrote...
*HOW can a mag like THAT not test and
review HEADPHONES?!?!

They do! Often! Sadly the cheapskate publishers are just interested in
making money by flogging overpriced reprints of the tests at...http://www..testreports.co.uk/music/hifi/

I wish they would follow the example of Stereophile and make all their
tests available freely.

A large library of technical test results are available from the editors
site... (Registration required to download in pdf format)http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/index.html

--
Ken O'Mearahttp://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/
_____________________
Agreed. Charging is just wrong! Especially for specs on stuff that
hasn't been past a cash register since the Clinton/Blair years. LMFAO!

-CC

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
__________________________________________
That curve you re-plotted is for the ATH-M50 RIGHT BELOW IT! See
top post, 2nd graph down he
http://www.head-fi.org/t/533917/rola...sed-headphones

And by itself if you prefer: http://cdn.head-fi.org/3/3c/3c969bd4_img024.gif

As I'm sure you would in a sound rig, please "check your sources"!

The source, Mr. Coaster, was the google images reference you
provided. If you provided ambiguous or conflicting sources,
that's your fault.

Again, here is the ATH-300 by itself:
http://cdn.head-fi.org/a/a8/a8dd81ad_rh-300_f.gif
Even when I exaggerated the y axis on this it was still flatter than
what you pdf'd.

Well, here's the graph you pointed me to in comparison
to the one I originally did.

http://cartchunk.org/audiotopics/RH-300-1+2_nfr.pdf

Frankly, calling either of these "flat" is a triffle
absurd. The difference in the low frequency could easily
be a difference in how well the phones are sealed against
the head: I've often seen larger differences than this
with the same headphone but positioned slightly differently.
Above 1 kHz, the response of both is pretty abysmal.
(note both graphs are normalized at 1 kHz for ease in
comparison.)

And suggesting that EITHER of them is dramatically better
than other headphones would suggest a lack of knowledge
of headphone measurements.

BTW nice work on PDFing the graph, just the wrong
headphone.

Actually I didn't PDF anything. I have written a utility
which, in fact, converts a wide variety of images of graphs
back to tabular data. Then a second utility plots the resulting
tabular data on a graph conforming to IEC263 requirements.
The output of that goes through a standard ghostscript pdf
printer.

BTW, IEC 263 states, among other things, what the ratio
of horizontal to vertical scale should be. You will note,
for example, that in the graphs I presented, 20 dB dB of
vertical scale, corresponding to a factor of 10 in
voltage, corresponds to a decade of frequency also a factor
of 10, on the horizontal scale. This is to prevent the
deceptive, misleading and essentially useless frequency
response graph display such as exactly the ones you
reference.

Beyond that, I would rate either of these headphones as "eh".

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 4, 4:23*pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
__________________________________________
That curve you re-plotted is for the ATH-M50 RIGHT BELOW IT! * *See
top post, 2nd graph down he
http://www.head-fi.org/t/533917/rola...0-vs-hd-25-vs-...

And by itself if you prefer:http://cdn.head-fi.org/3/3c/3c969bd4_img024..gif

As I'm sure you would in a sound rig, please "check your sources"!

The source, Mr. Coaster, was the google images reference you
provided. If you provided ambiguous or conflicting sources,
that's your fault.

Again, here is the ATH-300 by itself: *

*http://cdn.head-fi.org/a/a8/a8dd81ad_rh-300_f.gif

Even when I exaggerated the y axis on this it was still flatter than
what you pdf'd. *

Well, here's the graph you pointed me to in comparison
to the one I originally did.

http://cartchunk.org/audiotopics/RH-300-1+2_nfr.pdf

Frankly, calling either of these "flat" is a triffle
absurd. The difference in the low frequency could easily
be a difference in how well the phones are sealed against
the head: I've often seen larger differences than this
with the same headphone but positioned slightly differently.
Above 1 kHz, the response of both is pretty abysmal.
(note both graphs are normalized at 1 kHz for ease in
comparison.)

And suggesting that EITHER of them is dramatically better
than other headphones would suggest a lack of knowledge
of headphone measurements.

BTW nice work on PDFing the graph, just the wrong
headphone. *

Actually I didn't PDF anything. I have written a utility
which, in fact, converts a wide variety of images of graphs
back to tabular data. Then a second utility plots the resulting
tabular data on a graph conforming to IEC263 requirements.
The output of that goes through a standard ghostscript pdf
printer.

* *BTW, IEC 263 states, among other things, what the ratio
* *of horizontal to vertical scale should be. You will note,
* *for example, that in the graphs I presented, 20 dB dB of
* *vertical scale, corresponding to a factor of 10 in
* *voltage, corresponds to a decade of frequency also a factor
* *of 10, on the horizontal scale. This is to prevent the
* *deceptive, misleading and essentially useless frequency
* *response graph display such as exactly the ones you
* *reference.

Beyond that, I would rate either of these headphones as "eh".

--
+--------------------------------+
+ * * * * Dick Pierce * * * * * *|
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
_______________________________
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree, as the old expression
goes.

As far as performance between 1K and 10K goes, I've seen *at least* a
shallow dip, or dips, anywhere between 3 & 5kHZ on even the highest
recommended phones on headphone.com. Even the so-called GAWHHHD!!!!!
of headphones, http://www.headphone.com/headphones/...ser-hd-800.php
, goes down a bit above 2kHz and recovers just below 10kHz. And
there's probably a good reason for that - if you study the same band
on the equal-loudness contour and complementary audiograms. Turns out
(most) humans have the highest hearing sensitivity right where those
headphones valley out. Coincidence? Conspiracy? I think not. More
like, for our own good!

I'm anxiously awaiting delivery of these things - they were supposed
to be here today acc to B&H on line when I place the order yesterday -
guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow. I want to burn them in for at
least 10 hrs. before even putting NEAR my head let alone on it. LOL!
I hope the fact they are late is not a bad omen.

-CC

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:23 pm, Dick Pierce wrote:

ChrisCoaster wrote:

__________________________________________
That curve you re-plotted is for the ATH-M50 RIGHT BELOW IT! See
top post, 2nd graph down he
http://www.head-fi.org/t/533917/rola...0-vs-hd-25-vs-...

And by itself if you prefer:http://cdn.head-fi.org/3/3c/3c969bd4_img024..gif

As I'm sure you would in a sound rig, please "check your sources"!

The source, Mr. Coaster, was the google images reference you
provided. If you provided ambiguous or conflicting sources,
that's your fault.


Again, here is the ATH-300 by itself:

http://cdn.head-fi.org/a/a8/a8dd81ad_rh-300_f.gif


Even when I exaggerated the y axis on this it was still flatter than
what you pdf'd.

Well, here's the graph you pointed me to in comparison
to the one I originally did.

http://cartchunk.org/audiotopics/RH-300-1+2_nfr.pdf

Frankly, calling either of these "flat" is a triffle
absurd. The difference in the low frequency could easily
be a difference in how well the phones are sealed against
the head: I've often seen larger differences than this
with the same headphone but positioned slightly differently.
Above 1 kHz, the response of both is pretty abysmal.
(note both graphs are normalized at 1 kHz for ease in
comparison.)

And suggesting that EITHER of them is dramatically better
than other headphones would suggest a lack of knowledge
of headphone measurements.


BTW nice work on PDFing the graph, just the wrong
headphone.

Actually I didn't PDF anything. I have written a utility
which, in fact, converts a wide variety of images of graphs
back to tabular data. Then a second utility plots the resulting
tabular data on a graph conforming to IEC263 requirements.
The output of that goes through a standard ghostscript pdf
printer.

BTW, IEC 263 states, among other things, what the ratio
of horizontal to vertical scale should be. You will note,
for example, that in the graphs I presented, 20 dB dB of
vertical scale, corresponding to a factor of 10 in
voltage, corresponds to a decade of frequency also a factor
of 10, on the horizontal scale. This is to prevent the
deceptive, misleading and essentially useless frequency
response graph display such as exactly the ones you
reference.

Beyond that, I would rate either of these headphones as "eh".

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

_______________________________
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree, as the old expression
goes.


What are you disagreeing with? You quoted me entire post and
then disagreed? Which part? The measurements? Well, that's
the data you pointed me to. If you disagree with that,, you're
disagreeing with your own sources: go argue with them, not me.
Are you disagreeing with my statement that the headphones
indicate they are anything but flat as you claim? If so,
tou're not only disagreeing with the measurements, which
aren't mine, but you're arguing with yourself below.

Are you disagreeing with my assessment that the headphones
are "eh"? Fine, but you haven't even listened to them, it
seems, and you haven't suggested ANY measurement data that
would suggest otherwise.

As far as performance between 1K and 10K goes, I've seen *at least* a
shallow dip, or dips, anywhere between 3 & 5kHZ on even the highest
recommended phones on headphone.com. Even the so-called GAWHHHD!!!!!
of headphones, http://www.headphone.com/headphones/...ser-hd-800.php
, goes down a bit above 2kHz and recovers just below 10kHz. And
there's probably a good reason for that

Yes, there is, but it is not what you state below

if you study the same band
on the equal-loudness contour and complementary audiograms. Turns out
(most) humans have the highest hearing sensitivity right where those
headphones valley out. Coincidence? Conspiracy? I think not.

It is a conspiracy, but not the one you'd like to claim.

The fact is that above a couple of kilohertz, the wavelengths
are proximal to and smaller than the dimensions of the "chamber"
in which the sound is being produced, be it the "standard
ear" or your ear. It's simply physically impossible to
produce a flat frequency response under conditions where
the wavelengths are so short you have resonance,
cancellation and reinforcement effects due to the physical
dimensions of the space and the drivers involved.

Now, the maximum peak sensitivity of the ear at around
4 kHz is, in fact, due to the primary resonance of the
ear canal, due to its physical dimensions. But many of
the other response anomalies are unique to headphones:
there are resonances in headphones that simply don't
exist in normal hearing because, normally, the ear is
NEVER enclosed and in close proximity to the sound source
as they are when headphones are used.

Further, the notion that you would even WANT the alledged
match between the ears (average) response and headphone
response is simply bogus logic: the gross sensivity
response of the ear is there whether you're listening to
headphones or not. Try to compensate for what is already
the natural response of the ear, one that the owner deals
with all the time already, results in an overcompensated
and quite unnatural response. It's very much the same
as equalizing your speakers based on hearing sensitivity:
whether you listen to music live or over speakers, you
still are using the same ear. If you think need to equalize
your speakers to compensate for your ears, why don't you need
to equlaize the live music to also compensate for your ears?

More like, for our own good!

No, more like for the good of the shareholders of the
headphone companies.

I'm anxiously awaiting delivery of these things - they were supposed
to be here today acc to B&H on line when I place the order yesterday -
guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow.

So you've already come to your conclusion and thus don't
need to avail yourself of B&H's return policy, having never
heard these things in your life?

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 5, 7:41*am, Dick Pierce wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:23 pm, Dick Pierce wrote:

ChrisCoaster wrote:

__________________________________________
That curve you re-plotted is for the ATH-M50 RIGHT BELOW IT! * *See
top post, 2nd graph down he
http://www.head-fi.org/t/533917/rola...0-vs-hd-25-vs-....

And by itself if you prefer:http://cdn.head-fi.org/3/3c/3c969bd4_img024..gif

As I'm sure you would in a sound rig, please "check your sources"!

The source, Mr. Coaster, was the google images reference you
provided. If you provided ambiguous or conflicting sources,
that's your fault.

Again, here is the ATH-300 by itself: *

http://cdn.head-fi.org/a/a8/a8dd81ad_rh-300_f.gif

Even when I exaggerated the y axis on this it was still flatter than
what you pdf'd. *

Well, here's the graph you pointed me to in comparison
to the one I originally did.

http://cartchunk.org/audiotopics/RH-300-1+2_nfr.pdf

Frankly, calling either of these "flat" is a triffle
absurd. The difference in the low frequency could easily
be a difference in how well the phones are sealed against
the head: I've often seen larger differences than this
with the same headphone but positioned slightly differently.
Above 1 kHz, the response of both is pretty abysmal.
(note both graphs are normalized at 1 kHz for ease in
comparison.)

And suggesting that EITHER of them is dramatically better
than other headphones would suggest a lack of knowledge
of headphone measurements.

BTW nice work on PDFing the graph, just the wrong
headphone. *

Actually I didn't PDF anything. I have written a utility
which, in fact, converts a wide variety of images of graphs
back to tabular data. Then a second utility plots the resulting
tabular data on a graph conforming to IEC263 requirements.
The output of that goes through a standard ghostscript pdf
printer.

* BTW, IEC 263 states, among other things, what the ratio
* of horizontal to vertical scale should be. You will note,
* for example, that in the graphs I presented, 20 dB dB of
* vertical scale, corresponding to a factor of 10 in
* voltage, corresponds to a decade of frequency also a factor
* of 10, on the horizontal scale. This is to prevent the
* deceptive, misleading and essentially useless frequency
* response graph display such as exactly the ones you
* reference.

Beyond that, I would rate either of these headphones as "eh".

--
+--------------------------------+
+ * * * * Dick Pierce * * * * * *|
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

_______________________________
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree, as the old expression
goes.

What are you disagreeing with? You quoted me entire post and
then disagreed? Which part? The measurements? Well, that's
the data you pointed me to. If you disagree with that,, you're
disagreeing with your own sources: go argue with them, not me.
Are you disagreeing with my statement that the headphones
indicate they are anything but flat as you claim? If so,
tou're not only disagreeing with the measurements, which
aren't mine, but you're arguing with yourself below.

Are you disagreeing with my assessment that the headphones
are "eh"? Fine, but you haven't even listened to them, it
seems, and you haven't suggested ANY measurement data that
would suggest otherwise.

As far as performance between 1K and 10K goes, I've seen *at least* a
shallow dip, or dips, anywhere between 3 & 5kHZ on even the highest
recommended phones on headphone.com. *Even the so-called GAWHHHD!!!!!
of headphones,http://www.headphone.com/headphones/...ser-hd-800.php
, goes down a bit above 2kHz and recovers just below 10kHz. *And
there's probably a good reason for that

Yes, there is, but it is not what you state below

if you study the same band
on the equal-loudness contour and complementary audiograms. *Turns out
(most) humans have the highest hearing sensitivity right where those
headphones valley out. *Coincidence? *Conspiracy? *I think not. *

It is a conspiracy, but not the one you'd like to claim.

The fact is that above a couple of kilohertz, the wavelengths
are proximal to and smaller than the dimensions of the "chamber"
in which the sound is being produced, be it the "standard
ear" or your ear. It's simply physically impossible to
produce a flat frequency response under conditions where
the wavelengths are so short you have resonance,
cancellation and reinforcement effects due to the physical
dimensions of the space and the drivers involved.

Now, the maximum peak sensitivity of the ear at around
4 kHz is, in fact, due to the primary resonance of the
ear canal, due to its physical dimensions. But many of
the other response anomalies are unique to headphones:
there are resonances in headphones that simply don't
exist in normal hearing because, normally, the ear is
NEVER enclosed and in close proximity to the sound source
as they are when headphones are used.

Further, the notion that you would even WANT the alledged
match between the ears (average) response and headphone
response is simply bogus logic: the gross sensivity
response of the ear is there whether you're listening to
headphones or not. Try to compensate for what is already
the natural response of the ear, one that the owner deals
with all the time already, results in an overcompensated
and quite unnatural response. It's very much the same
as equalizing your speakers based on hearing sensitivity:
whether you listen to music live or over speakers, you
still are using the same ear. If you think need to equalize
your speakers to compensate for your ears, why don't you need
to equlaize the live music to also compensate for your ears?

More like, for our own good!

No, more like for the good of the shareholders of the
headphone companies.

I'm anxiously awaiting delivery of these things - they were supposed
to be here today acc to B&H on line when I place the order yesterday -
guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow. *

So you've already come to your conclusion and thus don't
need to avail yourself of B&H's return policy, having never
heard these things in your life?

--
+--------------------------------+
+ * * * * Dick Pierce * * * * * *|
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
______________
I was disagreeing with your "ehh" statement regarding the rh-300s.
Otherwise your knowledge of the subject is fine. I did listen to them
this morning(ups delivered very late last night) and found them to be
very "tubby" sounding(lots of 100-160hz presence acc to the eq as I
manipulated it), and the highs very rolled off.

If this is what flat sounds like I'd blame my EARS before blaming any
headgear! lol. So at least I know what my ears do to the headphone,
and not the other way 'round. So you could say my hd-280 pros and
MDR-7506 "interact with my ears" in a manner I personally perceive as
"flat". Someone else's "flat" may come via AKGs or Shures, or even
Skull Candy; who knows?

-CC